Proposition 29

Should California add new regulations for kidney dialysis clinics?

California has about 650 outpatient kidney dialysis clinics that treat roughly 80,000 people three times a week. This measure would require dialysis clinics to have an on-site physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant; to report additional information to state regulators; to obtain consent from state health officials before closing a clinic; and prohibit dialysis clinics from refusing to care for patients based on their insurance provider. Sound familiar? It should. Californians rejected similar measures — Proposition 8 in 2018 and Proposition 23 in 2020 — which were also put on the ballot by SEIU UHW West.

Yes Argument

This measure would force DaVita Kidney Care, Fresenius Medical Care and the companies who run these clinics to allocate some of the billions of dollars they make every year to improving conditions for patients and making the clinics safer. Their clinics are unsanitary and staff are stretched, rushed and forced to take shortcuts. The industry is a numbers game built on the backs of Black and Latino patients who account for more than half of all dialysis patients.

No Argument

These regulations for the dialysis industry are wrongheaded, would make it more difficult for patients to receive treatment and might result in some clinics needing to close. Rules for a complicated health care system are best left to the lawmakers. This is nothing more than an abuse of California’s initiative system by SEIU UHW West. The union is pushing this ballot measure only to apply financial pressure on the big dialysis companies as leverage in its fight for unionization.

Key Supporters
This list represents notable organizations and officials who have taken a position on the ballot measure, or who are funding the campaigns in support or in opposition. This list is not exhaustive, and may be updated.
This list represents notable organizations and officials who have taken a position on the ballot measure, or who are funding the campaigns in support or in opposition. This list is not exhaustive, and may be updated.

Key Opponents
This list represents notable organizations and officials who have taken a position on the ballot measure, or who are funding the campaigns in support or in opposition. This list is not exhaustive, and may be updated.
This list represents notable organizations and officials who have taken a position on the ballot measure, or who are funding the campaigns in support or in opposition. This list is not exhaustive, and may be updated.

Fundraising
Campaign finance data comes from the California Secretary of State’s office and our partners at Voter’s Edge.
Campaign finance data comes from the California Secretary of State’s office and our partners at Voter’s Edge.

Updated at 5:30 PM PT on Oct 27, 2022
Source: California Secretary of State
In Support
$16.0mTotal
SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
$7.8m
California Democratic Party
$1.0k
In Opposition
$86.3mTotal
DaVita, Inc.
$52.7m
Fresenius Medical Care
$27.0m
US Renal Care, Inc
$5.9m
Satellite Healthcare, Inc
$250.0k
Dialysis Clinic, Inc.
$100.0k

 

More California Propositions

Proposition 1


Should California amend its constitution to include the right to reproductive freedom, including access to abortion and contraceptives?

Proposition 26


Should California legalize sports betting at tribal casinos and horse racetracks, and allow roulette and dice games at tribal casinos?

Proposition 27


Should California legalize online sports betting?

Proposition 28


Should California guarantee that 1% of the amount funded for public education be set aside for music and the arts in every K-12 public school?

Proposition 30


Should California raise the personal income tax of its wealthiest residents to pay for programs meant to fight climate change and air pollution?

Proposition 31


Should California ban flavored tobacco products?